Back to square one?

Just to return to the subject of a previous post, you may have seen in The National that Mike Russell has denied that the leaked drafts of the SNP manifesto are genuine, whereas Wings has insisted that they are and that his source is impeccable. It's possible that both could be telling the truth as far as they know it - the text seemed too good to be true in some ways, and was written without the tentativeness and excessive caution that is normally associated with the current SNP leadership's approach to securing an independence referendum, so I'm wondering if it was someone else's suggested wording and the Wings source mistook it for a leadership text. In a strange way it doesn't really matter who is telling the truth, though - now that Mike Russell has issued a denial, the eventual manifesto will have to be made different to 'prove' that the leak was fake, and there's a danger that the good things in the draft will be lost. I'm a tad troubled by the mood music emanating from the SNP on social media - early indications suggest they'll be fighting a presidential campaign, inviting voters to show their appreciation for Nicola Sturgeon's handling of the pandemic by giving her another term of office. I can see why that would have seemed seductive as a strategic option and in a narrow sense it may even work, but we should really be entering the independence endgame in this campaign, and a pitch of "back Nicola as the best leader of a devolved Scotland" won't give any confidence that the leadership have got that memo. There's also a danger that independence supporters may not feel they have enough incentive to turn out to vote - in other words we could repeat the mistakes of the 2017 Westminster general election. 

The other significance of the presidential tone is that it strongly suggests that the leadership and associated strategists are confident that Nicola Sturgeon will remain in office even if she's found to have broken the ministerial code. And whatever anyone thinks of her, that's probably just as well, because this is a crucial election for the independence cause and a leadership vacancy a few weeks before polling day could be catastrophic. My theory is that John Swinney would take over on an interim basis as a 'safe pair of hands', because I suspect there would be a feeling that the more adventurous options like Kate Forbes or Humza Yousaf would have to wait until everyone has a chance to draw breath and think the whole thing through. But Mr Swinney has led the SNP into elections before, and the results were underwhelming to say the least. 

Meanwhile there's a suggestion that the new Labour leader Anas Sarwar may take on Ms Sturgeon in the Glasgow Southside constituency ballot. Wings is talking up the possibility that he might beat her and that she might lose her seat altogether, due to her only being placed second on the list as a result of the unhealthily secretive 'reserved places' scheme. Spoiler alert: Nicola Sturgeon is not going to lose Glasgow Southside. If anything she's more popular than she was five years ago, and she has an enormous cushion that will see her home even if Mr Sarwar gets a bit of momentum going and starts attracting Tory tactical votes. The main thing his candidacy would say to me is that Labour accept they have no chance of winning any constituency seats in Glasgow at all, and that instead of trying to get him elected as a constituency MSP, they're going for a publicity stunt.